Syrian photos proved fake...

[Anti-Am]

So since you don't approve of America's motives, what DO you suggest?

A lot of people, including women and children are dying. Are you suggesting they should just continue to be killed until someone you approve of comes along to save them?

You realize that in order for you to take your moral high ground innocents must die?

Russia needs the current Syrian regime to stay in power more than a western country needs this to stop.

Therefore, no one gets involved unless it is covertly.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Anti-Am

[bush_cheney2004]

So since you don't approve of America's motives, what DO you suggest?

Let Canada do it....it's a chance to put all that yapping about human rights and the "Responsibility to Protect" to the test. Start by sending Canadian Maher Arar over to complete his Syrian military duty!

[bleeding heart]

"Iraq is better off now, without Saddam."

Yep. The conventional pieties, as I see you have noted.

[bleeding heart]

So since you don't approve of America's motives, what DO you suggest?

A lot of people, including women and children are dying. Are you suggesting they should just continue to be killed until someone you approve of comes along to save them?

You realize that in order for you to take your moral high ground innocents must die?

No...and as of yet, there is no American intervention in Syria.

All I'm saying is that we are naive--adolescently stupid, in fact--to think that if the US, or Canada, or anyone else intervenes, it is automatically for benign purposes. History doesn't tell us that...so it must be nationalism and indoctrination.

As Hemingway wrote, "Isn't it pretty to think so?" But self-aggrandizing wishes are not good enough.

And this whole "who cares about motives?" bit is a little strange, given the (admittedly unfounded) premise that we all should strive to understand the truth of what goes on.

Edited June 13, 2012 by bleeding heart

[dre]

This is the problem with all this "World Policing".

The people over there that would like us to intervene know exactly how to pull our strings, and attempt to trick us into taking action that benefits their position. They feed us fake intelligence (Iraqi), and bogus propoganda, and given the fact we have very little in the way of real human intel over there, and such a poor understanding of the place in general we are stupid enough to believe what various dissidents tell us... Or we just find it politically convenient to believe it.

3 trillion dollars was spent in Iraq based on a pack of these type of lies.

Time to let the middle east sort out its own problems and fight its own civil wars. I dont really care about that place or the people that live there... If I thought 5 dollars could fix all the problems in the middle east Id buy a burger with it instead.

[Anti-Am]

Time to let the middle east sort out its own problems and fight its own civil wars. I dont really care about that place or the people that live there... If I thought 5 dollars could fix all the problems in the middle east Id buy a burger with it instead.

Totally agree.

[dre]

A lot of people, including women and children are dying. Are you suggesting they should just continue to be killed until someone you approve of comes along to save them?

A lot of women and children are dying everywhere. If we jerk at the knees and spend billions of dollars every time we see some unpleasant images from someone elses civil war we wont last.

And if you are really worried about women and children are dying you could prevent 1000 times as much death for a fraction of the cost by spending that money on aid. Iv seen estimates that we could literally end world hunger for less than 50 billion dollars per year.

Let Syria have its civil war... Such conflicts are ugly and they might hurt your feelings and make you all emotional inside, but these things just happen, unfortunately... Many countries have had civil wars and internal conflicts. Just gotta let them play out.

For god sakes stop pretending that all this military interventionalism has anything at all to do with women or children dying. It causes MORE women and children to die not less.

[dre]

So since you don't approve of America's motives, what DO you suggest?

I would take the money that might be wasted on wrong-headed world policing, and use it build a bridge here in Canada, or refurbish an aging nuclear plant, or upgrade telecommunications infrastructure, or pay down some debt, and use it to help us deal with the huge impending cost of caring for an aging population, or improve our education system, or spend it on things like stem cell research or nano technology research.

[bleeding heart]

we are stupid enough to believe what various dissidents tell us... Or we just find it politically convenient to believe it.

I personally believe it is more #2 than #1.

The idea that we are "good guys" fooled into violence by crafty third-worlders....seems a little...over the line, you might say.

I think a good deal of public support is generated honestly...from the lies. Yes, certainly.

But listening to Colin Powell recently on "The Daily Show" blaming his self-evident descent into lies and bone-deep trickery at the UN on intelligence agencies--and on Congress! (an easy target) was fascinating. He knew he was lying. Cheney knew it. Wolfowitz knew it. Blair knew it. Bush...probably knew it.

Chretien knew it. The East European "coalition of the willing" (all going in direct opposition to the will of their peoples) knew it was garbage. Knew it full well.

The (distinct global minority) of the civilians in the world who supported the war...yes, they presumably genuinely believed the lies.

At heart, they're Romantics.

Edited June 13, 2012 by bleeding heart

[GostHacked]

For god sakes stop pretending that all this military interventionalism has anything at all to do with women or children dying. It causes MORE women and children to die not less.

We know that if there was a civil war in Canada we'd be pretty pissed if there was unwanted outside interference. UN resolution to support the rebels, no fly zone, sanctions ect ect.

[GostHacked]

At heart, they're Romantics.

I don't think romantics would be a term I would use to describe those people.

[dre]

I personally believe it is more #2 than #1.

The idea that we are "good guys" fooled into violence by crafty third-worlders....seems a little...over the line, you might say.

I think a good deal of public support is generated honestly...from the lies. Yes, certainly.

But listening to Colin Powell recently on "The Daily Show" blaming his self-evident descent into lies and bone-deep trickery at the UN on intelligence agencies--and on Congress! (an easy target) was fascinating to watch. He knew he was lying. Cheney knew it. Wolfowitz knew it. Blair knew it. bush..probbaly knew it.

Chretien knew it. The East European "coalition of the willing" (all going in direct opposition to the will of their peoples) knew it was garbage.

The (distinct global minority) of the civilians in the world who supported the war...yes, they presumably genuinely believed the lies.

At heart, they're Romantics.

Yeah the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I understand why people see some of the grotesque imagery from various conflict zones and jerk at the knees, and support attempts to rectify these issues at ANY COST. You kinda gotta love em for it the problem is theyre thinking with their hearts and not their brains.

If "women and children death reduction" is in fact something we want to spend money on, then we should spend that money where we get the most "women and children death reduction" for our buck. And military interventionalism in almost all cases gets you the very worst bank for your buck and in most cases in fact increases the ammount of "women and children dying".

[bleeding heart]

I don't think romantics would be a term I would use to describe those people.

Maybe not, but I'm a generous sort.

[bleeding heart]

And military interventionalism in almost all cases gets you the very worst bank for your buck and in most cases in fact increases the ammount of "women and children dying".

There are no doubt exceptions...but you're right. We see it again and again.

That's why the "why don't you support the Iraqis' liberation from Saddam?" rhetoricians have slinked away on that particular argument.

[dre]

I don't think romantics would be a term I would use to describe those people.

I actually think most of them are good folks! How can it not pull at a persons heart strings to see this kind of suffering? Its a natural reaction: "OH MY GOD WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!"

Edited June 13, 2012 by dre

[Guest Manny]

So since you don't approve of America's motives, what DO you suggest?

A lot of people, including women and children are dying. Are you suggesting they should just continue to be killed until someone you approve of comes along to save them?

You realize that in order for you to take your moral high ground innocents must die?

I know, I know! How about we send in a coalition and bomb the hell out of anybody that moves. But we're not purposely killing civilians, we'll be saving them from the bad guys.

So what if 1000x more people get killed than would have otherwise, if we'da left it alone. At least they died for a good cause, and they'll finally be free...

[Guest Manny]

If we jerk at the knees and spend billions of dollars every time we see some unpleasant images from someone elses civil war we wont last.

That's right because, dare I say it, dare I say it... NO!

Let someone else say it.

[bleeding heart]

I know, I know! How about we send in a coalition and bomb the hell out of anybody that moves. But we're not purposely killing civilians, we'll be saving them from the bad guys.

So what if 1000x more people get killed than would have otherwise, if we'da left it alone. At least they died for a good cause, and they'll finally be free...

Exactly. These "humanitarians" sometimes get a bit confused, as when their humanitarianism gets politicized beyond recognition.

[Guest Manny]

But listening to Colin Powell recently on "The Daily Show" blaming his self-evident descent into lies and bone-deep trickery at the UN on intelligence agencies--and on Congress! (an easy target) was fascinating. He knew he was lying. Cheney knew it. Wolfowitz knew it. Blair knew it. Bush...probably knew it.

And his problem is he continues to lie about it. He has convinced himself that it was still for the greater good, that the Iraqis are better off now than they would have been. he qualifies it by stating that Saddam would have eventually acquired weapons of mass destruction.

He does not say how that would happen, since the truth is that the United States provided Saddam with the technology for chemical warfare, and allowed him to use it against others. the reason he had it was thanks to them. I would like to see Powells response to that accusation. <squirm> <deflect>

[bleeding heart]

And his problem is he continues to lie about it. He has convinced himself that it was still for the greater good, that the Iraqis are better off now than they would have been. he qualifies it by stating that Saddam would have eventually acquired weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, well...if the choice is between his assertions, and admitting that he's a war criminal...why, that ain't no choice at all!

[Signals.Cpl]

1.

You said (correctly, by the way, in my opinion) that if the US were to intervene, they would receive criticism "about oil and imperialism and all that."

Well, first of all, these are legtimiate complaints and concerns.

But more to the point, you imply that you disagree with them..meaning you think it would be for humanitarian motives. (An extreme rarity, despite the numerous interventions and attacks, so I don't know why you'd believe that).

No, I didn't explain myself properly, my issue is that regardless of the reason WHY the US intervenes if they choose to do so they will get flak for it from the very people who are now crying for someone to intervene. There is a group of people who are complaining about the Syrian government slaughtering its citizens and that someone should do something to stop it, yet if someone does something(the US) then those same people(who happen to be in the west) will complain about the US intervening. Honestly I don't expect the US to intervene unless there is a benefit to them or a danger to one of their allies in the region either Israel or Turkey or if Syria endangers Iraq's fragile stability.

2.

If a country attacks another for reasons that aren't humanitarian, then there is less chance of a humanitarian success.

Since it's not the goal, it will not be forefront of the policy.

Therefore it's unlikely to happen.

If the US were to decide that they should intervene and since they are the one military in the west that can honestly intervene the most effectively it has to be them or a coalition of European countries that might have fragmented goals. If an intervention were to happen it need not happen due to humanitarian reasons and it will not necessarily fail because the base reasons were other then humanitarian. There are NGO's and nations who would hopefully step in to the gap.

Look at the catastrophe in Iraq: hundreds of thousands dead, sectarian violence, and the biggest refugee problem on Earth. (Mostly unreported, but a massive tragedy.)

Honestly, I think the biggest refugee problem on earth is a tad exaggerated as I can think of a few places that are worse off and have a bigger refugee problem. And honestly, the Iraq war was so problematic not because of the core reasons for the invasion, but because of mishandling of the situation.

Now, it could well be true that a selfish intervention could achieve good results, or ones preferable to the status quo; but the chances decrease along with a lack of genuine goodwill, since that will be part of policy's focus, should humanitarianism exist.

At the moment any selfish intervention is preferable to the current situation, but the main problem is that with the population breakdown as it is, any intervention is bound to fail unless its main goal is to stabilize the situation, kick out the current regime and leave as quickly as you can. The nation that intervenes should provide security and need not provide anything above and beyond that as NGO's and governments over then the intervening nation will be more then capable to accomplish the humanitarian tasks.

[dre]

At the moment any selfish intervention is preferable to the current situation, but the main problem is that with the population breakdown as it is, any intervention is bound to fail unless its main goal is to stabilize the situation, kick out the current regime and leave as quickly as you can. The nation that intervenes should provide security and need not provide anything above and beyond that as NGO's and governments over then the intervening nation will be more then capable to accomplish the humanitarian tasks.

This is all pure fantasy. First of all the ridiculous assertion that "any intervention at all is preferable to the current situation". But beyond that its idiotic that we would pick sides AT ALL in a civil war we know absolutely nothing about, based on very poor information about the conflict or who is on either side.

This is way beyond the government roughing up protesters. This is a sectarian dispute between two very well organized forces that has been brewing for more than decade. And the current government has the support of roughly half the population. Its quite simply none of our business, and anything we do there is likely to make the situation much worse.

[Signals.Cpl]

This is all pure fantasy. First of all the ridiculous assertion that "any intervention at all is preferable to the current situation". But beyond that its idiotic that we would pick sides AT ALL in a civil war we know absolutely nothing about, based on very poor information about the conflict or who is on either side.

This is way beyond the government roughing up protesters. This is a sectarian dispute between two very well organized forces that has been brewing for more than decade. And the current government has the support of roughly half the population. Its quite simply none of our business, and anything we do there is likely to make the situation much worse.

1) No one has to take sides, forcing both sides to stop fighting and in effect doing a nice and effective Chapter 7 without the useless UN makes sure people stop dying and we find solutions.

2)So if they were roughing up the protestors we need to be outraged, but since they are murdering them en mass we should ignore it?

3)If they were so well organized it wouldn't be so one sided.

4) Or it could turn in to a genocide and then the blame will be placed at the US for not acting....

[dre]

1) No one has to take sides, forcing both sides to stop fighting and in effect doing a nice and effective Chapter 7 without the useless UN makes sure people stop dying and we find solutions.

Youre plan to depose the current government IS taking sides. And no it absolutely wont "make sure people stop dying".

2)So if they were roughing up the protestors we need to be outraged, but since they are murdering them en mass we should ignore it?

Being outraged is one thing. Mistakenly thinking we can fix this with a few troops, planes, and tanks is another completely. THe very suggestion that we should intervene in something we know almost nothing about is nothing but pure arrogance, and im wondering how many times we need to get it wrong before people learn.

3)If they were so well organized it wouldn't be so one sided.

THe FSA IS well organized and who says is "so one sided"? If its so one sided why has the government been unable to put a stop to all this stuff after over a year?

4) Or it could turn in to a genocide and then the blame will be placed at the US for not acting....

Better to be blamed for not stopping the deaths than for causing a whole bunch more, which is exactly what would happen.

[Signals.Cpl]

Better to be blamed for not stopping the deaths than for causing a whole bunch more, which is exactly what would happen.

Can I borrow your crystal ball to play the lottery?